Support NeoGAF

[Prodigal Son]

say that they're impartial an unbiased. That was the funniest line of all.



Yes, and Reddit has become a hivemind cesspool incapable of rational discussion. The inevitable flaw in such a system.

Poli-GAF? Calling all of reddit a hivemind? Um. Sure, okay.

I guess echo-chambers are seldom self-aware.

maybe you're more likely to handwave away any differences between subreddits & sites so you don't have to admit one side's been demonstrably less willing to consider alternatives, to the point that /r/politics cannot be reasonably described as a multifaceted political discussion board anymore (because all but a certain few types of post gets brigaded to the point that it doesn't even show up)

just a thought

Interesting post.

"Poli-GAF" isn't quite Hillary-GAF. Not in title anyway.

That doesn't change that the overwhelming majority of posters there are pro-Hillary and will actively condescend the shit out of any pro-Bernie posts. The Sanders supporters on this board just don't bother posting there or have been banned for 'misconduct.'


EDIT: Someone literally just told someone to "get the fuck out of here" for saying they think Hillary is a necessary evil.

 

[Primethius]

Sorry, there's like no way Reddit promotes expression more then a typical message board. Reddits system is pretty much designed to promote circle jerks.

See: r/politics


Edit: That you think poliGAF and reddit are comparable. You must be joking.

 

[marrec]

Poli-GAF? Calling all of reddit a hivemind? Um. Sure, okay.

I guess echo-chambers are seldom self-aware.

There's plenty of dissention here on GAF stop being blinded by salt. Nobody gets banned for supporting Bernie.

And /r/politics is a perfectly fine board with varying degrees of support. Jesus this primary turned everyone into a bunch of sensitive ninnies.

 

[Drek]

Maybe you're more likely to consider someone a 'dick' if they're saying something that starkly contrasts with your own political ideals? I dunno, that seems pretty likely to me.

I just think its funny that NeofuckingGAF of all places is waving its finger at reddit for being anti-freedom of expression. I mean, really? Reddit? Lolwhat?

You express yourself in how you vote too. An upvote shows support, a downvote shows critique. That's part of expression. At the end of the day I can still post too, even if people disagree with that as well. On the other hand, here, we literally take away people's ability to continue the discourse on the entire website if we don't like what they're saying. Don't get me wrong. It's done for good reason and contributes, for the most part, to a better atmosphere of discourse. But let's not fool ourselves into thinkings ours is the high-road of freedom.

One is base populism. The other requires you to back up what you're saying with something approaching reasonable thought. Pretty easy to tell which one is more about a free discussion of ideas.

 

[Fenderputty]

Wow, lots of hate for TYT here. Uh, they are an unabashedly-progressive YT channel. If you thought they weren't going to support Sanders and shred Hillary, you haven't been watching them very long. They've savaged Obama over the years too. Now I think they've taken their Sanders support way over the top, but I still enjoy their coverage of the GOP race and other topics.

That Armenian genocide thing from Cenk isn't new. He was a constitutional Republican too at one point. People change their minds over time, who'd a thunk it?

Does anyone else not see the irony in defending Cenk due to evolution on issues but kill Hillary for the same evolution and lack of "purity"

 

[gutter_trash]

Does anyone else not see the irony in defending Cenk due to evolution on issues but kill Hillary for the same evolution and lack of "purity"

so true, especially since Cenk was a Conservative while in college

 

[Mecha]

It's interesting to watch /r/SandersForPresident scramble around to find ways that Bernie could possibly win after every loss.

Look how close they are guys, Bernie could easily overtake Hillary.

 

[GK86]

You guys are really obsessed with Reddit.

 

[Prodigal Son]

One is base populism. The other requires you to back up what you're saying with something approaching reasonable thought. Pretty easy to tell which one is more about a free discussion of ideas.

You can argue that, I guess.

You quite literally just told someone to "get the fuck out" for expressing a political opinion though. (A perfectly reasonable one too) I don't quite get how you can, in light of that fact, still claim that you're all about that fair and evenhanded discourse.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Poli-GAF? Calling all of reddit a hivemind? Um. Sure, okay.

I guess echo-chambers are seldom self-aware.

Posting inflammatory shit like this got you banned last time.

 

[Antiwhippy]

I must say, as a neutral third party who's mostly following this race because it's fucking bonkers, r/politics is seriously just a wasteland of Bernie shilling.

And I do like bernie.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

I'm browsing reddit for the first time, specifically r/politics, and it's truly unbelievable.

We have a few of these people here, but so many more of them are on r/politics, it's insane (I am referring to ideologically hampered hypocrites who are threatening to vote for Trump absent a Sanders nomination).

That particular sub-reddit is a good reminder of why sometimes you need to temporarily remove yourself from the internet's many echochambers (Neogaf being one of them) in order to not have potentially false or vitriolic ideas reinforced and hammered into your head, to such an extent that you begin to believe everything negative about the candidate, while discarding anything positive.

Someone on r/politics made a very good point by saying that prior to Sanders gaining traction in this election many people were fine with Clinton being the nominee, but as soon as Sanders started gaining support ("momentum"), then the tone toward Clinton drastically changed.

 

[marrec]

You guys are really obsessed with Reddit.

Right? It doesn't even fuckin' matter, people wanna see it as a salt-mine or a green idyllic pasture though and of course wanna compare it to GAF. Shit's stupid.

"freedom of expression" like you can't support Bernie on GAF, or even Trump or Cruz. Please.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Posting inflammatory shit like this got you banned last time.

"inflammatory".

Exactly. Imagine if I told you, as a Sanders-guy on GAF to "get the fuck out" for criticizing Sanders. Yet I can't even criticize the clear and obvious hive-mind mentality here or even insinuate that there is one, without having my perspective dismissed as 'inflammatory.'

I haven't attacked anyone here. Come on. We're discussing. This is discussion looks like. Ideas are challenged.

"freedom of expression" like you can't support Bernie on GAF, or even Trump or Cruz. Please.

I mean, you can technically make the post. It's just that you're infinitely more likely to be banned because of it.

I don't sympathize in the least with any of these perspectives, but imagine someone trying to justify their opinion on being:

A) Pro-Trump-Wall
B) Anti-gay marriage
C) Pro-muslim travel ban

They wouldn't be able to get three posts in.

Is this system a good one? Mostly yeah. I just think it comes with some down sides.

 

[Maxim726X]

You can argue that, I guess.

How would you argue against that, I wonder- Since it's exactly how the platform is built.

 

[marrec]

"inflammatory".

Exactly. Imagine if I told you, as a Sanders-guy on GAF to "get the fuck out" for criticizing Sanders. Yet I can't even criticize the clear and obvious hive-mind mentality here or even insinuate that there is one, without having my perspective dismissed as 'inflammatory.'

I haven't attacked anyone here. Come on. We're discussing. This is discussion looks like. Ideas are challenged.

Well you're wrong.

There, discussion over.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

"inflammatory".

Exactly. Imagine if I told you, as a Sanders-guy on GAF to "get the fuck out" for criticizing Sanders. Yet I can't even criticize the clear and obvious hive-mind mentality here or even insinuate that there is one, without having my perspective dismissed as 'inflammatory.'

I haven't attacked anyone here. Come on. We're discussing. This is discussion looks like. Ideas are challenged.

Deja-fucking-vu

 

[Prodigal Son]

Well you're wrong.

There, discussion over.

You sure told me, dude.

Deja-fucking-vu

Sure. My opinion hasn't and will never change unless the situation does. If the perspective that posters from the majority-political perspective and being too condescending is an 'inflammatory' one, then you should call a mod, I think.

Call Hillary evil is as close to shit posting as you can get. You could say, well I think Hillary is a bad choice because X y z and I'm 100% sure Drek will post his next novel and it'll be a damn good read. But post inane shit and it'll typically be responded at the same level. I'm repeating myself now, but yeah. Sorry the folks here don't fall so easily for the pie in the sky?

No. see:

You back up the idea with reasons why they're wrong. You don't just tell them to "get the fuck out." That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. He'll probably do that though, I hope.

 

[Irnbru]

"inflammatory".

Exactly. Imagine if I told you, as a Sanders-guy on GAF to "get the fuck out" for criticizing Sanders. Yet I can't even criticize the clear and obvious hive-mind mentality here or even insinuate that there is one, without having my perspective dismissed as 'inflammatory.'

I haven't attacked anyone here. Come on. We're discussing. This is discussion looks like. Ideas are challenged.

Post shit get shit. If you don't back up your claims in an area of decently high discourse your going to get the same level of response back. People have had amazing discourse here beyond what I've seen on any other site. People don't just fall for pie in the sky politics, give me substance. Calling Hillary evil is as close to shit posting as you can get. You could say, well I think Hillary is a bad choice because X y z and I'm 100% sure Drek will post his next novel and it'll be a damn good read. But post inane shit and it'll typically be responded at the same level. I'm repeating myself now, but yeah. Sorry the folks here don't fall so easily for the pie in the sky?

 

[Fenderputty]

so true, especially since Cenk was a Conservative while in college

its mind boggling really

 

[Primethius]

- Bernie Sanders is a necessary evil.
- Get the fuck out of here with that shit.

Pretty sure you could get away with that. Cause the initial comment is so damn stupid.

 

[linkandzelda]

It's interesting to watch /r/SandersForPresident scramble around to find ways that Bernie could possibly win after every loss.



Look how close they are guys, Bernie could easily overtake Hillary.

lol they took out the Super Delegates. They really are completely deluded.

 

[marrec]

You sure told me, dude.

The idea that GAF is somehow disenfranchising toward any supporter of Bernie who wants to reasonably discuss actual issues is ludicrous, especially when comparing it to Reddit of all places.

 

[Prodigal Son]

The idea that GAF is somehow disenfranchising toward any supporter of Bernie who wants to reasonably discuss actual issues is ludicrous, especially when comparing it to Reddit of all places.

I've seen reasonable discourse take place. It's just that one side is just more likely to shut-down discussion on the basis that the other side is being 'unreasonable' or 'inflammatory.' We've seen that plenty of times, even on this page and the last page.

And then, more often than not, the person deemed as such by the vocal majority is banned.

 

[Primethius]

I've seen reasonable discourse take place. It's just that one side is just more likely to shut-down discussion on the basis that the other side is being 'unreasonable' or 'inflammatory.' We've seen that plenty of times, even on this page and the last page.

And then, more often than not, the person deemed as such by the vocal majority is banned.

It's funny, I don't think anyone would really disagree with that. But the reasons for that ban, you sure are making it seem like the poster wasn't at fault. :lol

OT: Is CNN just slow? NY is still at 94% for me.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

I've seen reasonable discourse take place. It's just that one side is just more likely to shut-down discussion on the basis that the other side is being 'unreasonable' or 'inflammatory.' We've seen that plenty of times, even on this page and the last page.

And then, more often than not, the person deemed as such by the vocal majority is banned.

If there is such a vast anti-Bernie conspiracy here on GAF that even Mods are in on it as you hilariously suggest, why even post here?

 

[TheBritishBear]

Sure, valid argument there, but wait:

Get the fuck out of here with this shit.

Why? I prefer if she wasn't the President if there were better candidates. I honestly don't like Hillary as a candidate, but I rather vote for her over Trump or Cruz.

So yes, I treat her as the lesser of evils.

 

[eBay Huckster]

the thing about this discussion is, i don't think any of the bans i've seen weren't deserved for a reason tangential to their candidate support

adam got banned for making a shitposty joke, i got banned for telling someone to "fuck off" in the middle of a heated argument (and probably would've been banned this past weekend if i hadn't taken a break for about a day and a half to cool off), erasure got banned for proving it's possible to flip between parallel universes, ekai keeps getting banned for gettin' a little too heated

the other thing about this discussion is, we should probably stop having it because it's meta chat

 

[marrec]

I've seen reasonable discourse take place. It's just that one side is just more likely to shut-down discussion on the basis that the other side is being 'unreasonable' or 'inflammatory.' We've seen that plenty of times, even on this page and the last page.

And then, more often than not, the person deemed as such by the vocal majority is banned.

Listen, GAF curates discussion much more than most websites, which is why most of the Poli talk (outside of PoliGAF and Primary Threads stupidly) is about substance rather than bullshit conspiracies or pooping on the opposition.

As long as everyone remains level-headed about it nobody ever gets banned. That said, you can't just say 'Hillary is evil and republican' and then just double down on that baseless and inflammatory statement, it'll get people banned. Also, getting deep down into meta discussion about GAF moderation and "hive-minds" and shit will get threads locked and people banned.

That's not because GAF is run by Hillary shills, but because stupid discussions like this are fucking stupid and have zero substance or relation to the damn thread at hand. It just leads us down this rabbit-hole of meta bullshit. You know all this though.

Sorry I was a dismissive ass to you earlier.

 

[Prodigal Son]

If there is such a vast anti-Bernie conspiracy here on GAF that even Mods are in on it as you hilariously suggest, why even post here?

Dude, come on. You know I didn't say anything like that. The mods respond to what the people say. It's their fucking job. If a poster says something that offends the majority, riles them up, that poster is likely going to be banned. I'm not criticizing moderators or individual posters. I'm just remarking on how the collective's majority perspective, more often than not, plays an unfair role in how this forum is moderated.

Listen, GAF curates discussion much more than most websites, which is why most of the Poli talk (outside of PoliGAF and Primary Threads stupidly) is about substance rather than bullshit conspiracies or pooping on the opposition.

As long as everyone remains level-headed about it nobody ever gets banned. That said, you can't just say 'Hillary is evil and republican' and then just double down on that baseless and inflammatory statement, it'll get people banned. Also, getting deep down into meta discussion about GAF moderation and "hive-minds" and shit will get threads locked and people banned.

That's not because GAF is run by Hillary shills, but because stupid discussions like this are fucking stupid and have zero substance or relation to the damn thread at hand. It just leads us down this rabbit-hole of meta bullshit. You know all this though.

Sorry I was a dismissive ass to you earlier.

Yeah, I guess meta-discussion isn't really what the thread is about. This is, in a sense, derailing from the main topic.

I understand that. You're right.

 

[Irnbru]

I've seen reasonable discourse take place. It's just that one side is just more likely to shut-down discussion on the basis that the other side is being 'unreasonable' or 'inflammatory.' We've seen that plenty of times, even on this page and the last page.

And then, more often than not, the person deemed as such by the vocal majority is banned.

Dude, a huge Hillary supporter JUST got banned yesterday for being out of line. It goes both ways. You can't just post something without backing it up and expecting someone to post a countering statement while needing to back it up because reasons. The moderation has been more than fair and I don't usually derdge out from the shadows but the pretty moderate discourse here I think is worth defending. Most people go out of their damn way to discuss points and they sometimes even go really out of their damn way to help inform people ( see:Matt) will continue to do so I'm pretty sure.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

the thing about this discussion is, i don't think any of the bans i've seen weren't deserved for a reason tangential to their candidate support

adam got banned for making a shitposty joke, i got banned for telling someone to "fuck off" in the middle of a heated argument (and probably would've been banned this past weekend if i hadn't taken a break for about a day and a half to cool off), erasure got banned for proving it's possible to flip between parallel universes, ekai keeps getting banned for gettin' a little too heated

And prodigal got banned for much of the same, while doubling down on it.

But no, lets just chalk it up to biased Mods in the pocket of Killary.

Dude, come on. You know I didn't say anything like that. The mods respond to what the people say. It's their fucking job. If a poster says something that offends the majority, riles them up, that poster is likely going to be banned. I'm not criticizing moderators or individual posters. I'm just remarking on how the collective's majority perspective, more often than not, plays an unfair role in how this forum is moderated.

So you've just admitted your shitposting was ban-worthy, and now that you're back you start shitposting again.

Thats a bold strategy cotton!

 

[Garrett Hawke]

But like, how is that exclusive to /r/ poliics? That's reddit. If I were to start Bernie-ing on /r/Hillary do you not think the exact same thing would happen? If you don't, you're quite literally delusional.

Because r/politics is basically r/SandersForPresidentLite?

And I mean, right in the sidebar:

Vote based on quality, not opinion.
Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics.

Yet 90% of posts on that subreddit are about how Hillary personally dismantled voting machines in poor neighbourhoods of New York (but only kind of poor... leaving the truly poor "uninformed" areas alone) to win the primaries.

 

[legacyzero]

Interesting post.

"Poli-GAF" isn't quite Hillary-GAF. Not in title anyway.

That doesn't change that the overwhelming majority of posters there are pro-Hillary and will actively condescend the shit out of any pro-Bernie posts. The Sanders supporters on this board just don't bother posting there or have been banned for 'misconduct.'


EDIT: Someone literally just told someone to "get the fuck out of here" for saying they think Hillary is a necessary evil.

Yep. I mostly just read and lurk in primary threads now because of this. And all Bernie supporters keep getting generalized into the Bernie-Bro category and it's frustrating.

 

[marrec]

Dude, come on. You know I didn't say anything like that. The mods respond to what the people say. It's their fucking job. If a poster says something that offends the majority, riles them up, that poster is likely going to be banned. I'm not criticizing moderators or individual posters. I'm just remarking on how the collective's majority perspective, more often than not, plays an unfair role in how this forum is moderated.

That's super not how the moderation team handles these discussions.

This is how it goes:

Hillary Stan: Bernie Sanders is literally Stalin.

Bernie Stan: lol good jokes m8

Hillary Stan: I'm serious, he'll kill millions and I hate him. He also eats babies.

Bernie Stan: What? Do you have proof?

Hillary Stan: *repeats same thing ad-infinitum*

Mods: Dumbass *ban*

And vice-versa .

 

[Prodigal Son]

It's a fair point that my posts derailed the threat and subtracted from discussion of the april primaries.

I get that.

 

[eBay Huckster]

on the bright side, at least i'm not spending all of this morning revising for a planning law final tomorrow

 

[ampere]

Ugh, so much negatively towards Bernie around here these days. I don't care what anybody says, I LOVE his vision for the country so he has my vote next week.

I like a lot of his vision too! In fact, he had me convinced back during the Georgia primary and I voted for him.

The problem is that he's not delivering on his core message of "downticket revolution" with anywhere near the level of support that Hillary is giving the downticket, and his endless harping on "breaking up the banks" without any real substance...

I definitely got swept up in the moment, but his platform isn't very realistic and the reality is that he's not much more progressive than Hillary (especially since he has some regressive positions: gun control, nuclear power, GMOs).

That being said, definitely vote for your preferred candidate, just remember in November who the real enemy is... Trump/Cruz/GoP

 

[FunkyMunkey]

rather than crapping up this thread with some weird misplaced persecution complex regarding your choice in a politician, perhaps you could point out situations where a poor bernie supporter was unfairly banned for merely posting their opinion and backing up what they said via contributing to the discussion (or more accurately pm a mod). you'll be gone searching for a good while i'd wager

what stage of grief is thinking everyone is going after you unfairly for your opinion?

i'm curious to see how the left narrative will change in the next week

 

[marrec]

Anyway I'm not going to be mad AT ALL if Bernie stays in the race till the end. Dude's got supporters who want to give him money and up until recently he had a very positive message that the Dems needed.

I want him to give up on tearing Hillary down though and just work on building on his "revolution" and bridging the gap between Bernie-Independants and the Dem party as a whole.

Also I'd like for him to stop talking about "breaking up the banks".

 

[Prodigal Son]

on the bright side, at least i'm not spending all of this morning revising for a planning law final tomorrow

I have a law final in four hours!


See guys, we cool.

 

[pigeon]

It's a big deal, but if she fucks up, then she's going to set back future female candidates.

Margaret Thatcher was our first female prime minister, but some of her decisions ended up fucking the Working Class.

Sure, this is true, because of the nature of prejudice. Obama faced the same danger as the first black president.

Ultimately it's not a good reason to do anything differently because somebody will be eventually have to be the first woman president. But it is an accurate observation of how sexism is poisonous even for people as successful as Hillary Clinton.

 

[Primethius]

CNN doesn't even have the results on the front page for me anymore. What's it even good for then?

Edit: Law finals suck. Blah. Glad that's behind me.

 

[Fenderputty]

Persecution complexes are fun WEEEEE!


A change of pace. Conservative radio this morning was basically thanking Bernie for hurting Hillary in ways they never could all while he knows he has no chance.


Fanfuckingtastic

 

[dramatis]

For those who are catching up today.

New York Primary (D) | 4/19 | 247 delegates = 139 Clinton, 108 Sanders (tentative results)
Full Results

New York Primary (R) | 4/19 | 95 delegates = 90 Trump (tentative results)
Full Results

Delegate counts are pledged delegates only.

For the math people. (scroll along)

It looks as though Trump will win every New York county except for Manhattan. More importantly, it looks as though he’ll eventually get something like 90 delegates of the 95 available in New York, winning all but one congressional district (he’s down by 70 votes to Kasich in the 12th congressional district on the East Side of Manhattan with all precincts reporting) and finishing above 50 percent in all but a handful of them. That’s right in line with the deliberately optimistic path-to-1,237 projections that we outlined for Trump last week, which had him finishing with 91 delegates in New York.

Sanders’s loss in New York means that he needs to do even better in upcoming contests than we originally thought to have any shot at winning more elected delegates than Clinton. More specifically, he’ll need somewhere in the area of 59 percent of the remaining elected delegates to eliminate his deficit to Clinton — he needed 57 percent before the night began. That means that he needs to win a state like Pennsylvania by closer to 10 percentage points instead of the 7 percentage points Nate originally calculated. (Sanders is behind in the Pennsylvania polling average by 14 percentage points.)

During a live blog last month, a commenter pointed out that Sanders is doing quite well in counties named Clinton throughout the country. He has won Clinton County in Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa and Michigan. And tonight he won Clinton County, N.Y. The streak lives! There’s a Sanders County in Montana, which votes on June 7. We’ll see if Clinton can get her revenge then.

There are reports of voting problems.

Citing concerns about potential voting irregularities during the most consequential presidential primary in years, the New York City comptroller, Scott M. Stringer, said on Tuesday that his office would audit the city’s Board of Elections in part to determine if tens of thousands of Democratic voters were improperly removed from voter rolls.

Michael J. Ryan, the executive director of the elections board, said that while approximately 125,000 were removed from voter rolls in Brooklyn since the fall, some 63,000 people were added. He said the decline did not “shock my conscience” because there were 800,000 registered Democrats in Brooklyn, and thousands of people were added and removed from the list every year.

As someone who worked the polls yesterday, have worked polls before, and had conversations with poll workers who have more experience than me, the problems are not a nefarious, rigged system, but the problems are what they are: human error.

NY Times also has a super interactive that shows votes from every NYC Election District + Assembly District (ED/AD, they are counted together). My home cluster of blocks went for Hillary (33 votes to 27) while the EDAD that I worked the table for went for Bernie (35 to 27). Both EDADs are considered heavily Asian lol. If you live in NYC and would like to find out how your EDAD voted, check it out.

 

[mozfan12]

God bless I live in California. I would need to take 30+ baths to not feel dirty to vote for "that" war mongerer. I'll vote for Jill Stein. God bless.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

God bless I live in California. I would need to take 30+ baths to not feel dirty to vote for "that" war mongerer. I'll vote for Jill Stein. God bless.

Well, at least you didn't call her Killary.

 

[Prodigal Son]

So Sanders need 59% of the vote from this point on instead of 57%?

I assumed he'd need more than that. He just basically went from extremely unlikely to slightly more extremely unlikely.

I respect his conviction, I suppose. Send a message too.

 

[marrec]

So Sanders need 59% of the vote from this point on instead of 57%?

I assumed he'd need more than that. He just basically went from extremely unlikely to slightly more extremely unlikely.

I respect his conviction, I suppose. Send a message too.

Might as well send a message at this point.

I won't respect him if he keeps trying to tear Hillary down though, that's not a message that needs to be sent.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

That 2% doesn't quite translate to needing 2% more of the vote in specific states. It still means he needs landslides in every state going forward.